Actually as far as I know it is. I believe about 50% or more of all possible conscripts choose civil service.

I don't know whether we would get enough people like that. We would definitely need higher wages. We're suffering a lack of pilots and doctors right now.

While this is still some issue, I don't think it still plays a major part in today's
Bundeswehr.


The NCOs can't have there eyers everywhere. If people do that **** after 16:30 then most soldiers are off duty and sometimes not even to be found inside the barracks (in Germany the families of the military staff does not live inside the barracks, so most soldiers go home to their families outside the barracks after their shift is done). So there are places and times where no one will see such BS happen.

On your final day you have to give back all the stuff you were issued (well most of it, you can keep your boots, shoes and t-shirts). If it'S damaged you're in trouble.

It's an excuse for not letting people out with it here. If people get injured because of faulty equipment then all (leagl) hell will break loose.

Thanks for explaining that.:salute:
I already thought it would be something like that. i still don't see how anyone can become a crack shot without using the rifle frequently on the firing range. :hmm2:

I'm not entirely sure what you mean with that.
You simply don't get any training for being a squad leader if you only serve 9 (or nowadays 6) months.

We do something like that in exercises when we simulate fights (the system is called AGDUS). However it doesn't teach you calculate wind into your aim, distance etc.
Not even non armored cars for you.;)

We use exercise hand grenades (or so I'm told as I never used them, no reason to train an office clerk in that stuff) and the laser stuff (though I believe that needs blank cartridges to work properly).

We have a sport suit (or two I believe) in addition to our normal camo uniforms. The sport suit comes with indoor and outdoor shoes.

Couldn't a civil war in a European nation result in a conventional battle? Couldn't military hardware of a nation's army fall in to the hands of an anti-government faction should sufficient numbers of their troops be persuaded by the ideology of said faction? Were their not air, armor and artillery battles in during the break up of Yugoslavia?

:06:

That's still only two choices. In my experience people tend to do better when divided into more than two specializations (broadly speaking, of course)


If you pay, they will come.

A good NCO doesn't have to watch his troops all the time. They will do what is right because they are motivated and have respect for the military. Good leadership starts at the bottom, not the top.

Everyone does that. I was referring more to gear that isn't personally assigned to you.

Silent enim leges inter arma. The military should know this above all.


Most combat takes places at ranges under 300m, where windage isn't really a factor. Even if it was, you don't have time to adjust your sights. The trickiest part of combat marksmanship is adopting the proper firing stance, shooting quickly, and keeping the weapon straight. After that it's just a matter of luck and the number of bullets you can put downrange.

I mean the system is too rigid. There is no reason why a person cannot be become a squad leader and an elite soldier-recruit in that timeframe. It just takes dedicated training and good leadership.

Having live ammo or sim ammo isn't the most important thing, though it sure helps. The most essential part of field excercises is to teach the important part of fire and maneuver. A good squad leader's squad will not be seen until it is too late, and just as the enemy identifies the target...they get hit in the rear:rock::haha:

Making that happen on a consistent basis isn't easy, but it can be done, even without the proper gear. Technically you don't even need weapons; it's just a tactical game of hide-and-seek; teamwork; communications; fire and maneuver; flank and envelop; retreat and ambush, etc...etc...

To me, the BW's problem sounds like one of motivation brought on by an improper system, not by a budget failure. :salute:

What could a journalist possibly find wrong with what our troopers do? It's not like there's anything wrong with... :hmmm:

Throwing expired camel spiders at each other. :yep:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3iH2C4We00&NR=1


Trying to mimic camel spiders. :yep:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uKNI58mi7k


Playing the X-Games. :yep:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szrkg...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBj4B...eature=related


Ahhh. The sweet sight of our tax dollars hard at work. (At least somebody got it right) :up::DL



And remember, it's only fun until somebody gets hurt. :know:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZpbXZaefqw

If there is a war and all you have are professional soldiers you might not be able to replace your losses quickly enough.
With reservists you have people who at least have some basic knowledge about being a soldier. Without those people you would have to start recruiting people who have no idea about warfare at all and whether you can train them in time to be proper soldiers compared to those who already have had some training is questionable at best.
Right no it doesn't look like we'll ever going to have a war here again but remember that the cold war is barely 20 years over.

I get your point, don't worry. And you are right. The current model with the 6 months doesn't make sense at all. It's just a waste of resources and lifetime for the draftees.

I'm not sure about that. From what I hear (and again it's just hearing when I talk to soldiers...whether it's all true might be a different story) our forces are doing quiet well in international exercises. Our tanks are manned with draftees (except the commander), our AAA units have draftees, the infantry has plenty of draftees. So it seems they aren't doing that bad at all (again, if those descriptions are accurate, I have no way to confirm or deny it).

Funding problem?;)


Agreed.

That sounds like a plan. 18 months might even be too long. If you can spend your time practising and not killing time 9 months can even be enough IMHO.

See points above.

Right now pretty much no one. But that can change. I don't say we need to keep an army of the size of what North Korea has. I just think that pretrained reservists can give us the edge if the brown smelly stuff hits the fan. It simply takes to long to train brand new soldiers.
Not now and not in the foreseeable future. How was that 20 years ago?

Would any of our spineless politicians face that? Or would they hide their heads in the sand and pretend that nothing is going on until the enemy knocks at the door, afraid of upsetting the people before the next election? If they finally wake up it's likely too late. (yes, a very hypothetical scenario...I know:D)

I think this is actually the biggest reason why our politicians haven't killed the draft yet.
You don't need to tell me. I have had fellow students who were out-mustered for physical reasons but were taking part in mountain bike contests all over Germany.

I see the draft as the seat belt in a car. Under normal conditions it's very unlikely that you will need it. Yet I feel more comfortable wearing it. Sometimes it's not your own fault that you crash.

UnderseaLcpl,

I agree with you a professional crew of a military would have many benefits including: higher motivation then enlisted, improved legal situation (not having to force people into difficult tasks because obviously volunteer troops will volunteer for anything, right? Right?!), an overall improved unit cohesion, professionality and effectiveness due to higher motivation/morale/etc., the ability to gel together well with high tech gizmo-type weaponsystems that enlisted men cannot fathom, less fatties, etc.

So a lot of things in favour of an all pro military. However, at least here where still around ~70 % of men still goes to the military service (the figures are falling though due to the x-boxification of the western youth) the military says there are other benefits that outweigh the pros of an all pro military.

The military says that the military service is supposed to 'weld' the people together, it creates a kind of national ethos among the men, it's 'the last chance' for the society to meddle with the men of certain age group and give them vaccinations etc. (as if this couldn't be done any other way) and that it's supposedly cheaper. Now how exactly the price is calculated by the military is a bit unclear to me because for some reason they don't calculate the costs from time lost from the young men's lives in studying and/or work. There is also the equlity between sexes issue with women being able to choose freely whether or not to go to the military service or not.

So overall, I would be in favour of an all pro military for us but with incentives for, say, young men to complete a short military service so they could be used as military reserve if needed.

It's actually more. You can do differnt things as civil service from working in old peoples homes to working in youth hostels to joining a volunteer fire brigade. There are lots of different options to choose from.

I heard Australia can't even crew one submarine....is their pay so lousy?

That could be from a draft flyer. Does the reality look like that in the US armed forces?;)
Depends on the individual. Some treat it carefully other's don't give a...you know what.

Hey, I'm the smart ass here!!!!http://smiliestation.de/smileys/Sauer/158.gif
The military is NOT above the law here (and neither in the States).;)
They have to respect safety rules just as any other company has to as long as they aren't in a war.


Simple, if you single out one individual from the group to become their squad leader, he will be hated by the rest of the group (who have just as much service time and experience as that guy).
However I forgot that one can become an assistant trainer and help training recruits. Though I believe that was only for soldiers who had decided to serve longer than just nine months.

True.


It's a bit of both. I won't deny that motivation is a factor.

That's why I said "broadly" but as long as the system works that's all that matters.

I had to look it up and I found this: http://forums.military.com/eve/forum.../4270044522001

The article points out a number of issues besides pay, which appears to be good, esp for the cooks. Not sure why they have so much trouble exactly, but if a PMC can do it, the RAN should be able to as well.

Sometimes. We have good and bad NCOs and officers. The good ones lead by example and lead from the front, and their men follow them and take initiative on their behalf because they don't want to disappoint a good leader.

Poor leaders are constantly being stabbed in the back by their troops. The men will slack off or find some kind of mischief to cause just to get back at a bad leader.

Then we have lazy leaders, who lead by example, but use a poor example, and the men follow it.
All I said was "laws are silent in times of war".:DL The military is, of course, somewhat liable for training accidents, but since you sign what is in part a consent form when you enlist, lawsuits over faulty equipment are limited. Our main problem here is field-grade officers coming up with ridiculous safety precautions to safe-guard their own careers, or in some cases, out of an exaggerated sense of concern for the men. I can't really blame them for the latter, I suppose, I did the same thing.

Well yeah, if he's not the right guy. I remember during recruit training that we went through about 5 "guides" (platoon leaders) who were universally despised before settling on my friend, recruit Gafford (now an officer). The guy had it all, best in PT, good on the range, motivated and motivating. We all looked up to him and followed his example as best we could. As a result (along with some other factors) we were Kilo company's top platoon for most of the training cycle.

Finding a leader, even in a conscript platoon, is easy enough. There will always be one or two guys the rest like and look up to anyways. Get those guys in shape, give 'em some training and you've got yourself a good prospective NCO. He may well decide to stay if treated like that. My suspicion, based on what you mentioned above, is that the BW is doing it backwards. Selecting leadership, good or bad, simply because someone is a career soldier is going to generate resentment no matter how you slice it, and that's even if there's no inter-service rivalry between conscripts and regulars.


And I won't deny that funding is a factor. All I'm saying is that the first recourse should not be to throw money at the problem. :salute: